From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2FGEHIt007501 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:14:17 GMT Received: from 142.13.111.219.st.bbexcite.jp ([219.111.13.142] helo=tiger.gg3.net) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DBEgR-00055V-I4 for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:14:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 4708 invoked by uid 89); 16 Mar 2005 01:14:14 +0900 Received: from lion.gg3.net (HELO lion) (10.0.0.2) by 0 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2005 01:14:14 +0900 Received: by lion (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:14:14 +0900 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:14:14 +0900 From: Georgi Georgiev To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/' Message-ID: <20050315161413.GA17344@lion.gg3.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <4235BFB0.70907@rle.ru> <4236004E.1010007@gentoo.org> <1110860664.11759.3.camel@matrix.brianandsara.net> <20050315065600.GA5908@ols-dell.iic.hokudai.ac.jp> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: c72de237-3d4a-402c-aefe-ba2fa7d52b71 X-Archives-Hash: ad2ae4e51fd2fb3ed591ac5d53ab50c5 maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types > On 12:56:00 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev wrote: > > maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types > > > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > Vitaly Ivanov wrote: > > > > > I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 > > > > >>> Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing > > > > >>> into a new root, then you're building a system and > > > > >>> shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not > > > > >>> documented either way, so it's undefined behavior. > > > > > > > > I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining > > > > systems in a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those > > > > systems trashes the files. Thank you for pointing out this > > > > behavior now, because it walks all over plans I have for a > > > diskless cluster. > > > I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they > > > didn't care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to > > > file a bug about it (or stir up that other one). > > > > Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a year! > > > > I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 that > > addresses the issue. You can directly do > > > > wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch -p0 > > > > which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the best. > > > > As I see that there are more people who are interested in the bug, I > > am expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try out the patch > > and in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what we need) when it > > makes them happy. > > > > The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration > > files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are > > comments like: > > I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a while > before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not trivial to fix it > because some of the config stuff isn't very well abstracted. It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the locations are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with something. Could we get some input from whoever told you this? > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 -- ) Georgi Georgiev ) Sure he's sharp as a razor ... he's a two- ) ( chutz@gg3.net ( dimensional pinhead! ( ) +81(90)6266-1163 ) ) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list